(following on from http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/blackwater-valley-path-closed-to-bikes-farnborough-to-ash-vale)

Landowner says it’s his right to close off the path, claiming it’s to prevent illegal fishing, and that the path was only a permissive path so he can do what he likes.

http://www.gethampshire.co.uk/news/local-news/its-right–landowner-defends-closing-8515003

Yep, that section has only ever been a permissive path, so always vulnerable to an unco-operative landowner.

And since this landowner’s retrospective planning application has been rejected, he’s throwing as many toys out of his pram as he can.

It’s a big shame about the path, but I don’t want to see the local planning procedures subverted, so I hope RBC carry on and take enforcement action to close him down.

STWer in the paper shocker!

He shoots his own argument down by saying that since 1989 it was a permissive path for walkers not bikes

Therefore the landowner has acquiesced to over twenty years of use without permission, and by rights cyclists can claim for a Bridleway or RB

If anyone here can get some evidence together from people who have been riding it for years I’ll happily guide them through the process.

He shoots his own argument down by saying that since 1989 it was a permissive path for walkers not bikes

Therefore the landowner has acquiesced to over twenty years of use without permission, and by rights cyclists can claim for a Bridleway or RB

Is that the case? I thought that only applied to unchallenged non-permitted routes, and that giving permissive rights was a way of specifically excluding claims under the 20-year rule?

But you’re much better versed in this stuff than me – please educate me 🙂 Is it because the permission was only for walkers, so cycle use IS unchallenged non-permitted use?

I’ve only ridden it since 1998 unfortunately, but if we can make a 20-year claim then I’ll raise it with Rushmoor Cycle Forum – there will definitely be plenty of people who can vouch for it – although I don’t know what constitutes evidence in these cases.

Yeah, that’s exactly the argument, if bikes never had permission but openly used it, then there’s a clear argument for dedication (walkers could not apply for a footpath because they had permission)

Should be easy enough to make up some evidence forms

Good stuff! Bike usage has always been completely open, including big signs with (I think) bikes on them indicating the route.

If you’re happy to be contacted ninfan, please drop me an email (I’ll put my address in my profile).

Depends if it really was 20 years of unchallenged access? Permissive ROW’s I’ve seen/heard of/ridden usualy close once a year (christmas day typicaly) to maintain their status.

So if he’s been locking it overnight or one day a year then it’s not unchallenged access.

Well there weren’t any gates until recently, and he’s not been the landowner for the whole period – but yes it’s possible that has happened. I wonder where the burden of evidence for that lies?

I’ve been using that section since it opened and it’s never been closed off prior to the current situation.

Not the perfect solution but when something similar happened in Devon I made a visit to the landowner with a bottle of scotch and was given permission to ride wherever I wanted on his land.

Bribes are not the right way forward but they’re easier than the alternatives.

Offthebrakes, I’m pretty sure I’ve been riding it on and off for more than 20 years.
I’d have to do the sums but I used to work for Redland (now Lafarge) back then and fish the first gravel pit. I was riding a 91 Kona in those days too and I can remember riding down there….
Email me if that’s any use.

Yep will do Pete.